One assumption that did seem to be shared by many was that
when we talk about a global leader we refer to someone at a high level in an
organization – someone at an executive level who has clear, global
responsibilities. In my view, this
conception is too narrow. The global and
the local realms are becoming increasingly blurred. When it comes to making the best decisions
for the organization it is critical that leaders at all levels and locations
have both a global and local mindset
– that they see the local impact of global decisions and the global impact of
local decisions. The responsibility for
anyone influencing and taking decisions should be to optimize results for the whole
organization rather than promote global or local at the expense of the other.
The types of decisions made by different leaders will vary
by level. Those at the top of the organization will be responsible for more
strategic decisions while those in the middle will be focused on more tactical
decisions. Those at lower levels of
leadership will be primarily responsible for operational decisions. What are
the differences?
·
Strategic
Decisions (Long-term): Concerned with deciding on the what?
·
Tactical
Decisions (Medium term): Concerned with deciding on the how?
·
Operational
Decisions (Short term): Concerned with deciding on how – right now?
Whatever the type of decision, the outcome should be
beneficial to global and local interests.
And so, my definition of a global leader:
“Any individual or group taking responsibility for making decisions - strategic, tactical, and/or operational - that aim to optimize global and local results.” Positional power is not a factor in this definition of
global leadership, and neither is location.
Being given responsibility
is also not a factor while taking
responsibility is.
From this perspective, most organizations will need a
far greater number of global leaders than they currently have.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment